Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T08:37:27.018Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Léon Van Parys NV v. Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau (BIRB). Case C-377/02

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Patricia Egli
Patricia Egli*
Affiliation:
University of St. Gallen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 100 , Issue 2 , April 2006 , pp. 449 - 454
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Case C-377/02, Léon Van Parys NVv. Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau (BIRB) (Eur. Ct. Justice Mar. 1, 2005). See the Web site of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, <http://www.curia.eu.int>, for its recent judgments and the opinions of the advocates general.

2 The common market organization for bananas is based on the following EC legislation: Council Regulation (EEC) 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the Common Organisation of the Market in Bananas, 1993 O.J. (L 47) 1; Council Regulation (EC) 1637/98 of 20 July 1998 Amending Regulation (EEC) 404/93 on the Common Organisation of the Market in Bananas, 1998 O.J. (L 210) 28; Commission Regulation (EC) 2362/98 of 28 October 1998 Laying Down Detailed Rules for the Implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) 404/93 Regarding Imports of Bananas into the Community, 1998 O.J. (L 293) 32; Commission Regulation (EC) 2806/98 of 23 December 1998 on the Issuing of Import Licences for Bananas Under the Tariff Quotas and for Traditional ACP Bananas for the First Quarter of 1999 and on the Submission of New Applications, 1998 O.J. (L 349) 32; Commission Regulation (EC) 102/1999 of 15 January 1999 on the Issuing of Import Licences for Bananas Under the Tariff Quotas and for Traditional ACP Bananas for the First Quarter of 1999 (Second Period), 1999 O.J. (L 11) 16; Commission Regulation (EC) 608/1999 of 19 March 1999 on the Issuing of Import Licences for Bananas Under the Tariff Quotas and for Traditional ACP Bananas for the Second Quarter of 1999 and on the Submission of New Applications, 1999 O.J. (L 75) 18. European Union legal documents are available online at <http://europa.eu.int>.

3 This procedure is authorized under Article 234 (previously Article 177) of the Treaty Establishing The European Community, Mar. 25, 1957, 298 UNTS 11 Google Scholar, as amended by Treaty of Amsterdam, Oct. 2, 1997, 1997 O.J. (C 340)Google Scholar 1, as amended by Treaty of Nice, Feb. 26, 2001, 2001 O.J. (C 80)Google Scholar 1, consolidated version reprinted in 2002 O.J. (C 325) 33 [hereinafter EC Treaty].

4 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1 A, in World Trade Organization, The Legal Texts: The Results Of The Uruguay Round Of Multilateral Trade Negotiations 17 (1999) [hereinafter The Legal Texts].

5 I am using “WTO Agreements” as a shorthand for referring to the set of agreements, now in force, that arose out of the Uruguay Round negotiations (1986-94) and that comprise die basic legal institutions of the WTO.

6 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Oct. 30, 1947, TIAS No. 1700, 55 UNTS 194.

7 The initial complaint against the EC was brought under the GATT 1947 in February 1993. For an overview and analysis of the different legal proceedings, see Read, Robert, The ‘Banana Split’: The EU-US Banana Trade Dispute and the Effects of EU Market Liberalisation, in The WTO And The Regulation Of International Trade 109 (Perdikis, Nicholas & Read, Robert eds., 2005)Google Scholar; John, H. Jackson & Grane, Patricio, The Saga Continues: An Update on the Banana Dispute and Its Procedural Offspring, 4 J. Int’l Econ. L. 581 (2001)Google Scholar; Salas, Mauricio & John, H. Jackson, Procedural Overview of the WTO EC—Banana Dispute, 3 J. Int’l Econ. L. 145 (2000)Google Scholar.

8 EC— Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, Request for Consultations by Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and the United States, WTO Doc. WT/DS27/1 (Feb. 12, 1996).

9 Panel Report, EC—Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, WTO Doc. WT/DS27/R/USA (May 22, 1997) (adopted Sept. 25, 1997).

10 Appellate Body Report, EC—Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, WTO Doc. WT/DS27/AB/R (Sept. 9, 1997) (adopted Sept. 25, 1997).

11 Award of the Arbitrator, EC—Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, WTO Doc. WT/DS27/15 (Jan. 7, 1998). In order to comply with the DSB decision, Regulations 1637/98, supra note 2, and 2362/98, supra note 2, were adopted by the competent EC institutions.

12 Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 2, in The Legal Texts, supra note 4, at 354.

13 EC—Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU, WTO Doc. WT/DS27/41 (Dec. 18, 1998).

14 Panel Report, EC—Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, Recourse to Article 21.5 by Ecuador, WTO Doc. WT/DS27/RW/ECU (April 12, 1999) (adopted May 6, 1999).

15 See supra note 2.

16 Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano (Nov. 18, 2004), paras. 83, 107.

17 Case C-149/96, Portuguese Republic v. Council, 1999 ECRI-8395, paras. 42-47; see Egli, Patricia & Kokott, Juliane, Case Report: Portuguese Republic v. Council of the European Union, 94 AJIL 740 (2000)Google Scholar.

18 Case C-69/89, Nakajima All Precision Co. v. Council, 1991 ECR1-2069.

19 Case C-70/87, Fédération de l’industrie de l’huilerie de la CEE (Fediol) v. Commission, 1989 ECR 1781.

20 Id, paras. 41, 52.

21 EC—Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, Notification of Mutually Agreed Solution, end. 1, WTO Doc. WT/DS27/58 (July 2, 2001).

22 Id, end. 2.

23 Case C-93/02 P, Biret International SA v. Council, 2003 ECR I-10497; Case C-94/02 P, Établissements Biret & Cie SA v. Council, 2003 ECR 1-10565; see Patricia Egli, Case Report: Biret International SA v. Council and Établissements Biret & Cie SA v. Council, 99 AJIL 230 (2005); Geert, A. Zonnekeyn, EC Liability for Non-implementation of WTO Dispute Settlement Decisions—Are the Dice Cast? 7 J. Int’l Econ. L. 483 (2004)Google Scholar; Alemanno, Alberto, Judicial Enforcement of the WTO Hormones Ruling Within the European Community: Toward EC Liability for the Non-implementation of WTO Dispute Settlement Decisions? 45 Harvard Int’l L. J. 547 (2004)Google Scholar.

24 Case C-93/02 P, Biret International SA v. Council, para. 57; Case C-94/02 P, Établissements Biret & Cie SA v. Council, para. 60.

25 See Case C-69/89, Nakajima All Precision Co. v. Council, 1991 ECR1-2069, para. 31.

26 See Case T-19/01, Chiquita Brands International, Inc. v. Commission, paras. 161, 167 (Eur. Ct. Justice Feb. 3, 2005); Gattinara, Giacomo, European Banana Importers and WTO Dispute Settlement Decisions; Is the Door Closed? 3 Eur. L. Rep. 101, 104–05 (2005)Google Scholar. According to the CFI, the expression “to comply with WTO law” has a much broader meaning than “to implement WTO law.” Measures undertaken by the EC to bring its legal order into compliance with DSB decisions are considered as measures “to comply with WTO law.” By contrast, a measure “to implement WTO law” must specifically transpose prescriptions arising form the WTO Agreements into EC law.

27 On this issue see John, H. Jackson, International Law Status of WTO Dispute Settlement Reports: Obligation to Comply or Option to “Buy Out”? 98 AJIL 109 (2004)Google Scholar; Griller, Stefan, Enforcement and Implementation of WTO Law in the European Union, in The Banana Dispute: an Economic and Legal Analysis 273 (Breuss, Fritz, Griller, Stefan, & Vranes, Erich eds., 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pauwelyn, Joost, Enforcement and Countermeasures in the WTO: Rules Are Rules—Toward a More Collective Approach, 94 AJIL 335 (2000)Google Scholar.

28 Geert, A. Zonnekeyn, The Status of Adopted Panel and Appellate Body Reports in the European Court of Justice and the European Court of First Instance, 34 J. World Trade 93, 102–03 (2000)Google Scholar.

29 See Cottier, Thomas, Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Characteristics and Structural Implications for the European Union, Common Mkt. L. Rev. 325, 372–75 (1998)Google Scholar.

30 See Thies, Anne, Biret and Beyond: The Status of WTO Rulings in EC Law,. Common Mkt.L.’Rev. 1661, 1675 (2004)Google Scholar.

31 See EC—Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, Communication from the United States, WTO Doc. WT/DS27/59//G/C/W/270 (July 2, 2001).

32 On issues relating to the principles of reciprocity and legal equality, see Armin Bogdandy, von, Legal Effects of World Trade Organization Decisions Within European Union Law: A Contribution to the Theory of the Legal Acts of International Organizations and the Action for Damages Under Article 288(2) EC, 39 J. World Trade 45, 52–53 (2005)Google Scholar. See also Eeckhout, Piet, The Domestic Legal Status of the WTO Agreement: Interconnecting Legal Systems, Common Mkt. L. Rev. 11, 50–54 (1997)Google Scholar.